Alan Caruba's blog is a daily look at events, personalities, and issues from an independent point of view. Copyright, Alan Caruba, 2015. With attribution, posts may be shared. A permission request is welcome. Email acaruba@aol.com.

Thursday, March 5, 2015

Hillary Will Not Run for President

By Alan
Caruba

The
revelations, reported initially in the most left-wing newspaper in the nation,
The New York Times, that Hillary Clinton used her own private emails to conduct
public business, suggests that there are forces within the Democratic Party
that do not want her to be its candidate for President in 2016.

It’s not
like Hillary did not know she was supposed to use the State Department’s email
system for reasons of national security; her private emails could have been
hacked by forces unfriendly to the U.S. All government employees are routinely briefed
on the laws that require this.

For the
record, I am no fan of Hillary Clinton. On September 18 of last year, I wrote a
commentary titled “Go Away, Hillary” in which I asked “Other than earning her
law degree, name one thing that Hillary Clinton has accomplished on her own.
Her accomplishments—slim as they are—have been achieved on the coattails of
either Bill Clinton or Barack Obama.”

Beyond
Hillary, what I object to is the necessity to raise millions with which to
secure either Party’s nomination and a billion to run for the presidency. We
are electing someone who has literally bought the election courtesy of donors
who have made the selection for the rest of us. There is something
fundamentally undemocratic about that.

That said,
I don’t think Hillary Clinton will run in 2016.

That may
surprise you, but it surprises me as well. And, yes, I could be wrong, but the
revelations about her patently illegal email use while Secretary of State
suggests that there are forces within her Party that want to end her candidacy
now rather than later. They are sending her a message.

Ron Fournier
is the Senior Political Columnist and Editorial Director of National Journal.
Prior to that, he worked at the Associated
Press for 20 years, most recently as its Washington Bureau Chief. On
March 3rd, he wrote an opinion piece titled “Maybe she doesn’t want
to run in 2016, top Democrats wonder. Maybe she shouldn’t.”

“Two weeks
ago,” wrote Fournier, “we learned that the Clinton Foundation accepted
contributions from foreign countries. Assurances from the Obama administration
and Clinton aides that no donations were made during her tenure as Secretary of
State were proven false.”

“Now The New York Times is reporting that
Clinton used a personal email account to conduct government business as
Secretary of State, an apparent violation of federal requirements that her
records be retained.” He quoted one unnamed “senior Democrat” as saying “This
story has legs as long as the election”, noting that many senior Democrats “are
angry.”

“My
concern,” wrote Fournier, “is that Clinton does not see this controversy as a
personal failing. Rather, she sees it as a political problem that can be fixed
with more polls, more money, and more attacks.” He described her problem as “a
lack of shame about money, personal accountability, and transparency.”

If there
is one thing to which the Democratic Party is totally dedicated, it is winning
the White House and control of the Congress. Ever since President Obama has been
in office, it has taken a beating as voters have relentlessly transferred power
to the Republican Party in Congress and in many States. It is an unmistakable
trend and one that must keep Democrat strategists up at night.

In January
2014, a Pew Research poll found that 69% of women who identified themselves as
Democrats hoped to see a female President in their lifetime, compared to only
20% of Republican women. In April 2014, a Rasmussen poll found that “51% of
likely U.S. voters have at least a somewhat favorable opinion of Clinton, while
44% view her unfavorably.”

The
Huffington Post analysis of the Pew poll concluded that “not wanting Clinton in
office is the only one explanation for Republican woman’s relative lack of
enthusiasm about electing a candidate of their own gender”, adding that “It may
be that (the) gender of a candidate has simply become a less compelling factor for
voters…”

Six years
of having a President who was elected primarily because he is black have taught
voters that race and gender are insufficient factors on which to base one’s
vote. Six years of a sluggish economy, massive unemployment, declining wealth
among the Middle Class, and a disaster called foreign policy will influence
2016 votes along with, of course, whoever the candidates may be.

So I will
return to my conjecture that Hillary, no matter her desire to be the first
woman U.S. President, will also have to address the practical realities of
politics. Opposition from within the Democratic Party will likely be a deciding
factor. She has put off announcing her intentions until April. If she puts it
off again that would suggest some deep misgivings.

If you had
the choice between a life of great wealth and fame as opposed to the daily
inquisition and criticism that comes with the presidency, which would you
choose?

About Me

I am and have been for a long time a writer by profession. I have several books to my credit and my daily column, "Warning Signs", is disseminated on many Internet news and opinion websites, as well as blogs. In addition, I am a longtime book reviewer and have a blog offering a monthly report on new fiction and non-fiction.